indonesia, · president joko widodo, the head of mui’s fatwa commission ma’ruf amin, and...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
The Politics of the Fatwa: Modern Islamic Legal Authority and Rise of the Indonesian Council of Ulama
Jeremy Menchik Assistant Professor
Pardee School of Global Studies Boston University
8 August 2019
Abstract: Fatwas from Islamic organizations are prominent elements of public debates in democratic Indonesia, as well as the broader Muslim world. Yet scholars lack a clear theoretical explanation for the power of fatwas in politics. This paper draws on original archival material to explicate the legal authority of the fatwas from the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia, MUI), which over the past twenty years has become one of the country’s most influential actors. The paper distinguishes three periods in the growth and transformation of MUI’s authority; starting with charismatic authority and state corporatism, MUI later gained formal regulatory authority, and now uses agenda setting, lobbying, mass mobilization, and the threat of violence. By examining how the power of MUI’s fatwas increased as the organization accrued more forms of authority, this periodization demonstrates that explaining the political power of the fatwa requires understanding the modern organizational authority of Islamic actors. In the modern age, Islamic legal authority reflects the dominant logic of political authority in society. Keywords: Islamic law, Islamic law and society, religion, Indonesia
![Page 2: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
I. Introduction On December 2, 2016, the National Movement to Safeguard the Fatwa of the Indonesian
Council of Ulama (Gerakan Nasional Pengawal Fatwa Majelis Ulama Indonesia, GNPF-MUI)
staged the largest rally in Indonesian history. Over 750,000 people filled the plaza around the
National Monument in Central Jakarta for the rally led by Indonesia’s leading Islamist
organizations, who were demanding action against Jakarta’s Chinese Christian governor for
alleged blasphemy against Islam. The event was attended not just by Islamists, but also by
president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of
more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of Islamists in
setting the political agenda for Indonesian politics. At the epicenter of that triumph was a fatwa
from the MUI.
Since 2005, fatwas from MUI have shaped public debates and state policies concerning
blasphemy, religious pluralism, minority rights, vaccinations, pornography, smoking, and
interfaith relations, among other issues. Internationally, fatwas from prominent clerics like
Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran have engendered heated debates about their influence. Yet, scholars
lack a political theory of the fatwa and therefore follow Max Weber in assuming that a fatwa’s
influence is a function of charisma or state corporatism (Weber 1947). This paper contends that
we need to go beyond Weber, beyond charisma, and beyond corporatism in order to explain
modern Islamic legal authority.
MUI is now one of the most powerful actors in Indonesia. Yet, missing from this literature is
an explanation for MUI’s rise to power. The seminal text on Islamic law and society in
Indonesia, Daniel Lev’s Islamic Courts in Indonesia: A Study in the Political Bases of Legal
Institutions (1972) was written prior to MUI’s creation. There are only two English-language
![Page 3: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
scholarly books devoted to MUI, both of them researched prior to democratization in 1998 and
the rise of MUI (Porter 2002; Mudzhar 1993). Since 2005 there has been an uptick in journal
articles devoted to MUI, but due to space constraints these writings address only narrow aspects
of MUI, usually in the form of descriptive analysis of the content of MUI’s fatwas or normative
laments about MUI’s challenge to liberal pluralism (Ali 2002; Hasyim 2011, 2015; Hosen 2004;
Ichwan 2005; Sirry 2013; Nasir 2014). While there are a few more comprehensive accounts
(Ichwan 2002, 2005; ICG 2008, 8-10; Olle 2009), missing from the literature is a synthetic
account of how MUI came to occupy a position of such power.
This paper attempts to address both gaps by explaining the power of MUI’s fatwas over time
as a function of the forms and degrees of authority that MUI itself has accrued. In the 1960s, Lev
noted that the relatively minor influence of Islamic courts in Indonesia was related to the minor
influence of Islamic political movements (1972). No one would make such a claim today. MUI is
an usually creative and innovative Islamic organization, unshackled by formal constitutional
constraints or the ideological limitations of secularism. Rather than delegating religious affairs to
the public sphere, MUI has fought against the differentiation of religion from other social
spheres. MUI has created new regulatory bodies for oversight of Islamic banking and food
certification. MUI has asserted and achieved authority over social spheres once controlled by
Suharto’s New Order regime and Islamic civil society, such as media oversight, expert authority,
mass mobilization, and more.
To demonstrate this evolution, the paper distinguishes three periods in the history of MUI
and demonstrates that in each era, fatwas from MUI exerted authority through distinct
mechanisms, and these forms of authority accumulated over time.
![Page 4: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
In the first period, from 1975 to 1990, MUI relied on a combination of charismatic authority
and expert authority derived from its status as a quasi-state body. MUI was essentially a model
of state corporatism, created by Suharto in order to control ulama in the same way that the
Islam-based Unity and Development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembanguan, PPP) provided a
vehicle to control Muslim political parties. In this period, the Weberian framework is indeed
effective for Islamic legal authority.
In the second period, from 1990 to 2005, MUI became a regulatory body with state-backed
coercive power over Islamic banking and halal food certification. This was a period of
institutional innovation. Key to MUI’s new power was the overlap between MUI officials and
the architects of the Association of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals (Ikatan Cendekiawan
Muslim Se-Indonesia, ICMI). In period II, MUI became not just “quasi-state” but a formal state
institution. Paradoxically, however, after democratization MUI also began to gain autonomy
from the state as a result of substantive disagreements with then-Presidents Abdurrahman Wahid
and Megawati Sukarnoputri, as well as financial autonomy as a result of its lucrative Islamic
banking and halal food certification programs.
In the final period, from 2005 to the present, MUI has extended its authority even further
and has begun to reap the benefits of innovation. It continues to receive funding from the state
and to appoint charismatic leaders, as in period I. It also continues to exert regulatory control
over Islamic banking and food certification, and in fact has expanded its reach to overseas
markets. It has also expanded its influence over media through close relationships with two other
regulatory agencies, the Film Censorship Board (Lembaga Sensor Film, LSF) and the Indonesian
Broadcasting Commission (Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia, KPI). Period III is distinct, however, in
that MUI has come to align with and even direct mass movements in order to put pressure on the
![Page 5: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
state. This alliance was implicit in the late 1990s and 2000s, but in recent years has become
overt, with leaders of radical Islamic mass movements now on MUI’s central board, including
Maman Abdurrahman of Persatuan Islam, the Salafi Muhammad Zaitun Rasmin, and the
organizer of the GNPF-MUI, Bachtiar Nasir. Additionally, Ma’ruf Amin gained the authority of
a cabinet member when he was appointed to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Presidential
Advisory Council (Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden) in 2007, giving him immediate access to the
president on a nearly weekly basis, as well as to the heads of other government ministries. In
sum, in period III MUI has expanding its regulatory powers while adding lobbying, mass
mobilization, and coercive authority through vigilante organizations like FPI to gain leverage
over other state institutions, thereby gaining the power of a social movement and even becoming
a competitor to the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In this period, MUI has
begun setting the agenda for Indonesian politics.
This periodization demonstrates the limitations of existing accounts of fatwas and their
authority for explaining the case of MUI. Traditional theories of Islamic legal authority depict
fatwas as a form of “non-binding” opinion, which accurately describes MUI’s fatwas only in
period I, and then only partially, due to MUI’s affiliation with the state. Likewise, state-
corporatism theories fall short given MUI’s autonomy; MUI’s fatwas do not automatically
become binding state law like those of the state-appointed muftis in Malaysia.
Ethical theories of the fatwa are similarly unhelpful. Drawing on two years of ethnographic
observation of the fatwa council of al-Azhar, the most esteemed center of Sunni learning in the
Muslim world, Hussein Agrama convincingly demonstrates that fatwas can be a way for the
mufti and Muslim to jointly find an ethical path to the ideal Muslim self (2010). Yet an ethical
theory of the fatwa cannot explain the authority of MUI, which operates nothing like the affable
![Page 6: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
ulama of al-Azhar. MUI’s fatwas are issued to great media attention. They are drafted following
testimony by experts in state law, Islamic law, economic development, and security. They are
crafted collectively and issued on MUI letterhead with the MUI stamp of approval and the
signatures of the head of MUI’s fatwa committee and his assistant. They are issued from MUI’s
glossy new building, with Ma’ruf Amin’s office on the highest floor. Insofar as MUI is advising
individuals, it is on paper and under the auspices of expertise, rather than through gentle counsel
and ethical imploring of Muslims to be their best selves.
In light of the changing nature of MUI’s power and the concomitantly changing authority of
its fatwas, the paper argues that contemporary fatwas contain no innate authority, nor do they
have any inherent effects. Instead, the authority of a fatwa is tied to the authority of the
organization issuing the fatwa. Scholars seeking to understand the politics of fatwas would do
well to start with organizations rather than state-corporatism (Porter 2002), charisma (Kingsley
2014) or ethics (Agrama 2010). This endeavor requires mapping the organizational position and
capacities of a specific actor, at a specific time, in response to a specific set of events.
Such endeavors are valuable beyond Indonesia. Clerics like Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme
Leader of Iran, and Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi of al-Azhar in Cairo are central to
contemporary politics, yet their mechanisms for influence are poorly understood. By focusing on
their organizational vehicles and the attendant forms of authority, scholars can cut through the
confusion that too often accompanies debates about Islam and politics.
The remainder of this paper elaborates these arguments. Section II outlines the state of the
literature on fatwas, Islamic legal authority, and MUI in order to pinpoint gaps. Section III
argues that MUI’s fatwas are emblematic of modern Islamic legal authority and its diverse
mechanisms of influence. It extends the theory to show how an organizational approach to the
![Page 7: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
fatwa can shed light on the politics of Islamic authority in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
Section IV is divided into the three periods outlined above. Section V discusses the limitations of
MUI’s authority and outlines the implications of MUI’s power for Indonesian democracy.
II. Existing Explanations for Islamic Legal Authority
In Islamic legal theory, a fatwa is a statement of non-binding opinion from a scholar of
Islamic law, usually a mufti. Historically, scholars regulated their own activities and delineated
professional standards for their behavior, meaning that all that was required for a person to give a
fatwa was religious knowledge and piety (taqwā). Fatwas were not binding on the person who
received them or the person who gave them. Yet, they were not arbitrary or lacking in
importance. Jurists have historically been reluctant to serve as fatwa givers because the issuer of
a fatwa has tremendous responsibility to God, and is exposed to the possibility of (divinely
punished) error (Masud, Messick and Powers 1996, 4, 16).
Observers who interpret fatwas as positive law often poorly understand this responsibility.
The ethical nature of the fatwa was most recently captured in Agrama’s (2010) erudite work on
Islamic law and society. He pushes back against the idea that fatwas are a tool of doctrinal
reform, bridging the divide between a classical tradition and the modern world, by showing that
the Islamic tradition has always been adaptive rather than static. Instead, Agrama suggests that
muftis issue fatwas in order to guide Muslims toward the ideal self.
The idea that fatwas are ethical in nature provides a useful, albeit insufficient, departure
from the commonly-used Weberian typology of political authority. Weber defines authority as
that which is accepted as legitimate by those subjected to it. He identifies three forms (Weber
1947, 328-386). Charismatic authority, represented by the Prophet, is the purest form in that it
![Page 8: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
claims the right to supersede existing normative orders and reveal new ones. Customary rulers,
such as monarchs, are representative of traditional authority. And rational-legal authority is
represented by government officials who hold office on the basis of specific rules and procedures
that define and limit their rights and responsibilities.
While Weber’s typology proved useful for mapping patterns of authority in 18th century
Europe, it is less helpful for mapping varieties of authority among modern Muslim communities.
In the past twenty years, scholars of Islamic law and society have made major advances in
understanding the similarities and differences between the traditional shari’a as it was practiced
prior to the nineteenth century and as it is understood and envisioned by modern states. Wael
Hallaq’s influential text, Sharī'a: Theory, Practice, Transformations, maps the radical
disjuncture between the pre-modern shari’a and contemporary “Islamic law”: the former was
grounded in ethics, customary norms, and local customary practices that created and maintained
a “well ordered society,” while the latter is uniform and implemented by the state (Hallaq 2009).
In Iza Hussin’s careful analysis, premodern shari’a was flattened to accord with the static,
uniform version of law envisioned by colonial administrators and postcolonial statebuilders
(Hussin 2016). It was also narrowed; rather than including administrative or commercial law, its
jurisdiction has been limited to family law, gender, and religious observance. It is for this reason
that Hussin describes the East India Company and Muslim state-builders in India as
implementing “Anglo-Muslim law” rather than shari’a (Hussin 2016, 85).
Malaysia is a key case for this literature; Hussin uses it to demonstrate how key features of
the shari’a were cast aside or unintentionally subverted by colonial state builders and Muslim
elites. The Malaysia example is instructive for the present study as well, since it has served as
something of a normative ideal for MUI. Tamir Moustafa demonstrates how the Malaysian state,
![Page 9: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
by making fatwas binding, paradoxically subverts the classical notion of fatwas as non-binding
legal opinions (Moustafa 2014, 162). Fatwas from the Islamic Religious Council, State Mufti,
and Islamic Legal Consultative Committee carry the force of state law with no effective
oversight from legislative institutions such as the Parliament (Moustafa 2018, 44).
Another useful comparative case is Brunei. Only the State Mufti has the authority to issue
“legal” fatwas (Müller 2015, 2017). Fatwas in Brunei are now binding state law, deployed by
state religious institutions in order to coopt opposition, promote piety, and authorize a particular
version of orthodoxy. The cases of Malaysia and Brunei are helpful for comparative and
theoretical purposes, as well as helping to explain where MUI’s ideas originate; there is evidence
that institutional norms have diffused from Malaysia and Brunei to Indonesia through regular
meetings of their respective Ministries of Religion (Pelita 1991a, 1991b). This surprising
pathway for norm diffusion runs counter to that assumed by the scholarship on transnational
Islamic influence, whereby norms diffuse from the Middle East—usually Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
or Iran—to the Muslim “periphery”.
The new literature on the state cooptation of Islamic law as a form of modern political
authority provides a crucial starting point for explaining MUI’s power, and the authority of the
fatwa. Yet, like Weber’s rational-legal authority, this research relies on a conception of authority
that is grounded in state sovereignty, the rule of law, and control of religion. Such a conception
of the authority of the fatwa is less helpful once we depart from “bureaucratized Islam” (Müller
and Steiner 2018). Rather than being bureaucratized by the state, MUI has increasingly contested
state hegemony by lobbying from above and using mass mobilization and the threat of violence
from below (for parallels with al-Azhar see Moustafa 2000).
Beyond pedagogical and legal-rational authority, there are two common explanations for
![Page 10: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
MUI’s growing power. The first and most common explanation centers on the changing ideology
of the Indonesian public. In this view, MUI’s growing authority is a reflection of public opinion,
which has purportedly evolved from supporting democracy to theocracy (Arifianto 2018).
Indeed, since democratization in 1998, conservatives have increasingly set the public agenda,
while more moderate Islamic organizations appear to have lost influence.
This explanation has some merit. Indicators from the World Values Survey (WVS) suggest
that Indonesians may not favor the differentiation of religion and state as much as they did in the
past and thus may favor more religious rather than secular political authority. In a 2001 survey,
90% of respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement “Religious leaders should not
influence government;” this number drops precipitously to 54% in the 2006 survey (WVS 2018).
Indonesian religious authorities may also be more conservative now than in the 1980s, when
Muslim moderates like Syafi’i Maarif, Abdurrahman Wahid, and Nurcholish Madjid set the
public agenda. The loudest intellectuals in contemporary Indonesia are conservative, which is
why Martin van Bruinessen describes Indonesian Islam as having taken a “conservative turn”
(2013).
Yet this explanation leaves as many questions as it provides answers. On a different WVS
indicator of differentiation, there is far less change, with 86% of respondents in 2001, then 74%
in 2006 agreeing that “Religious leaders should not influence how people vote.” Similarly, Greg
Fealy and Robin Bush’s research on support for the mass Islamic organizations Nahdlatul Ulama
(NU) and Muhammadiyah finds that while the giants of moderate Islam remain influential in
religious affairs, their sway in politics has dropped markedly, suggesting that Indonesians
continue to favor the differentiation of religion and state (Fealy and Bush 2014).
A second line of explanation focuses less on the changing ideology of the public than on the
![Page 11: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
behavior of elites. Thomas B. Pepinsky, R. William Liddle and Saiful Mujani contend that
religious piety is a poor predictor of political preferences and that the “conservative turn” is a
function of strategies of mobilization (2018). Likewise, in a prescient early analysis of MUI’s
rise, the International Crisis Group noted that MUI has skillfully mobilized radicals in civil
society in order to pressure the government, with its greatest success with President Yudhyono,
who in 2005 and 2007 gave MUI his support to play a prominent role in policymaking (ICG
2008, 8-10; see also ICG 2001, 2, 16). And Jeremy Menchik’s research on the history of
intolerance toward heterodox groups demonstrates that elites have long drawn on intolerance as a
productive aspect of Indonesian nationalism (2014). Conservatives and Islamists are not new to
Indonesian politics; they are newly visible.
This second explanation is consistent with the argument pursued in this paper. Yet, the
existing literature falls short in several key respects. First, these explanations fail to explain how,
when, and why conservatives have been able to set the agenda. They take for granted the
authority of the conservatives rather than explicate its origins. Second, these explanations
emphasize only the opportunities and innovations of MUI in the post-Suharto period, ignoring
the pivotal moves by MUI to developing its economic, media, and links to radicals in the 1990s,
long before reformasi. Third and finally, these explanations ignores the changing organizational
forms and subsequent authority of Islamic organizations; to understand the power of MUI
fatwas, it is important to contrast MUI’s modes of authority in the three periods, as well as with
more traditional Islamic organizations like Muhammadiyah, NU, and Egypt’s al-Azhar.
III. Argument: Modern Islamic Legal Authority
![Page 12: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
MUI came to be a leading religious and legal authority in Indonesia by aggregating
influence through organizational expansion, innovation, and alliance. While discussions of
MUI’s influence invariably describe its fatwas as “non-binding” and its institutional position as
“quasi-state,” these descriptions rely on outdated assumptions. MUI has grown in power by
using modern forms of authority familiar to scholars of comparative politics and international
relations, such as regulatory authority, expert authority, agenda-setting authority, lobbying, mass
mobilization, and coercive authority (Keck and Sikkink 1998).
In that respect, MUI’s authority is illustrative of the possibilities presented by the
fragmented and decentralized nature of Islamic authority in the modern world. Mass education
and the expansion of state control over society has destabilized traditional religious authority
(Eickelman 1992; Hefner 1998). While secularization theorists believed that such destabilization
would lead to the decline of religion, more recent work suggests that pluralism, competition, and
contestation are the result (Meuleman2011; Eickelman 1998). MUI is a prime example of
successful competition. Over time MUI has successfully expanded its authority over issues by
aggregating modern forms of social control.
Specifically, since 1990 MUI has expanded its mandate, gaining regulatory power over
shari’a banking and food certification through its National Sharia Board (Dewan Syariah
Nasional, DSN MUI) and its Institute for Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Assessment (Lembaga
Pengkajian Pangan, Obat-Obatan dan Kosmetika, LPPOM MUI), both of which are recognized
by parliamentary legislation. Likewise, MUI has built close alliances with the regulatory bodies
for media, and by doing so has demarcated the limits of acceptable discourse in film and TV.
MUI has meanwhile sought to distance itself from the government by shifting its institutional
program from the position of a subordinate coopted by the state to that of an autonomous entity
![Page 13: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
that lobbies the state in innovative ways, including as a member on high-level commissions and
advisory boards. This innovation has also taken more concrete forms, such as MUI’s move out of
the national mosque into a separate building that gives it greater autonomy. Around 2010, MUI
moved its office from a back hallway of the government-built and -owned Istiqlal Mosque to an
independent, modern, luxurious space where MUI could issue decrees from on high.1 Finally,
MUI has meticulously aligned with mass movements in society, directing their mobilization in
order to lobby for policies from below through the appearance of mass support as well as the
threat of violence.
MUI’s fatwas thus embody a diverse array of types of authority, all of which are thoroughly
modern rather than being solely a function of charismatic authority, state corporatism, legal-
rational authority, traditional authority, or ethical authority as exemplified by al-Azhar. To
understand MUI’s growing power, it is necessary to look beyond these traditional modes of
Islamic legal authority to modern organizational forms and their attendant strategies for exerting
social control.
MUI is trying to make its fatwas binding, like the fatwas of modern Malaysian and Bruneian
muftis in the employ of the state, and it has been partially successful. Where MUI departs from
those cases, however, is in its mechanisms for doing so. In period II, select MUI fatwas became
binding though regulatory means. In period III, a broader array of MUI fatwas became binding
through formal lobbying from above (directed specifically toward the Ministry of Religion,
President, Constitutional Court, and Legislature) and through informal lobbying from below
using alliances with mass movements and the threat of violence. In other words, MUI is creating
Islamic law through other means than Malaysian and Bruneian ulama, but with similar effects.
![Page 14: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
More theoretically, this aggregation of religious-political authority suggests that the key to
understanding MUI’s influence is recognizing that it uses a broad and creative array of strategies
of influence. Like the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam
Malaysia, JAKIM), MUI relies on its regulatory authority over mundane issues like food
certification and Islamic banking to compel everyday Muslims into compliance. Akin to the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, MUI deploys mass mobilization, filling the streets and
compelling the state into conformity with its policy preferences. Like the European Council for
Fatwa and Research, MUI brings together prominent Muslim scholars in order to unify their
jurisprudence and issue joint fatwas that represent the expertise of the collective, which in turn
shape public behavior through ethical appeals. Similar to Saudi Arabia’s leading religious
family, the Al ash-Sheikh, MUI partners with government leaders in order to gain influence in
return. In comparative theoretical perspective, MUI’s fatwas are emblematic of modern religious
authority and its creative, diverse mechanisms for social influence (Hoesterey 2015).
This aggregation is innovative for an Indonesian religious organization, but should be
unsurprising to scholars of law and society. MUI is simply adapting strategies of social control
developed by others; Suharto created new institutions to control social forces, liberal activists use
NGOs to generate allies in civil society, and Islamists use mass mobilization to put pressure on
the state. MUI is playing by the rules of the game. As Michael Peletz remarks in reference to
Islamic court judges in Malaysia, “there is only one game in town, and that game defines both
the field of play and the rules governing how to play” (Peletz 2015, drawing on Bourdieu and
Wacquant 1992). Looking beyond religion, then, MUI is both innovative and derivative. In the
modern age, the authority of a fatwa reflects the dominant logic of political authority in society.
In that respect, Lev’s insights remain authoritative (1972).
![Page 15: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Beyond MUI, this argument suggests that mapping the political authority of fatwas should
begin with modern organizations. For example, in 2010 Muhammadiyah issued a controversial
fatwa saying that smoking was prohibited (haram). Responses ranged from strong support by
health organizations to strong opposition from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, unsurprising
given that tax revenue from tobacco makes up a large portion of the ministry’s budget. Public
commentators said the “non-binding” fatwa would have no impact. Yet Muhammadiyah runs
thousands of schools and hundreds of hospitals and health clinics, and smoking was banned at all
of those sites. I witnessed firsthand the power of Muhammadiyah’s fatwa at its 2010 meeting
when I asked one Muhammadiyah leader to undertake a survey. He agreed to do so, but then
turned his back to me in order to get his glasses out of his front pocket without revealing the
packet of cigarettes hidden there. Other smokers could be found hiding behind buildings, in the
corner of empty rooms, or off the grounds (Personal observation, July 5, 2010, Yogyakarta).
Elsewhere in Indonesia’s public sphere, smoking is omnipresent. Muhammadiyah’s fatwa was
authoritative because it became policy in thousands of locations.
JAKIM provides a nice illustration of the virtues of this approach beyond Indonesia. JAKIM
fatwas are published by official state organs, viewable online and also distributed among all
government offices and public institutions such as mosques and schools. Rather than being
emblematic of ethical or pedagogical authority, they are the quintessential example of coercive
state authority, so much so that the failure to obey published fatwas can result in a fine or
imprisonment (Tayeb 2017, 6, 16 fn. 1). Rather than reflecting solely pre-modern Islamic law,
JAKIM’s e-syariah and e-fatwa systems reflect modern forms of legal reasoning and the
agglomeration of norms from Japan and Britain (Moustafa 2018, 38; Peletz 2013)
![Page 16: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Iran provides another illustration of this approach. Ayatollah Khomeini’s famous fatwa
against chemical, biological and nuclear weapons has been the source of much debate and
confusion. Advocates of international diplomacy have pointed to the fatwa as evidence of the
Iranian government’s commitment to non-violent methods of dispute resolution, while skeptics
have mined Shiite theology to suggest that the fatwa is not important due to dissimulation
(Shuster 2012). Missing from the debate is the more banal conclusion that Khomeini’s fatwa
should be read as neither transcendent nor irrelevant, but as a policy. Policies are important
drivers of state behavior, and also subject to change given shifts in political, economic, or
military conditions. Indeed, fatwas from the Supreme Leader have been reversed, repealed, and
revised in the past, and there is no reason to believe that theological opinions about nuclear
weapons are not subject to similar revision (Khalaji 2011, 19).
An organizational approach to the authority of the fatwa is also useful beyond the confines
of the state. In 2004, when the Jordanian government was battling extremism, King Abdullah
wrote to 24 of the world’s most senior Islamic scholars in order to gather their views on who is a
Muslim, under what conditions it is possible to declare someone an apostate (takfir), and what
qualifications are necessary to issue a fatwa. Based on the fatwas crafted in response, including
from Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Mohamed Sayed Tantawi of al-Azhar, and Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani, Abdullah convened a conference of 200 scholars from 50 countries, who issued a
declaration called “The Amman Message” to emphasize Islam’s values of tolerance and
opposition to the practice of takfir.
How should scholars interpret these fatwas, or their being bundled into a larger statement?
This paper suggests is it less productive to view them as emblematic of ethical, charismatic or
legal-rational authority than as characteristic of the soft international law typical of international
![Page 17: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
agreements between state and non-state actors. On issues of trade, environmental protection, and
human rights, such non-binding agreements help build normative order without constraining
state sovereignty (Abbott and Snidel 2000). In that respect, The Amman Message should be
understood as yet another way in which fatwas are being reimagined and deployed by modern
Islamic authorities.
![Page 18: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
IV. Three Periods of MUI
Period I (1975-1989): State Corporatism
In 1975, President Suharto created MUI as a hierarchical series of consultative councils. At
the outset, MUI had “little impact on the Islamic community” and the wider public (McVey
1983, 209). Two years earlier Suharto had forced all Islamic political parties into PPP, which
helped him to consolidate power and neutralize opposition; MUI was intended to similarly
neutralize ulama that were active outside of party politics. It was designed as a mechanism to
“co-opt, fragment, and neutralize Islam as an autonomous political force, regulate associational
life, and ensure mass turnouts for [the political party] Golkar at election time” (Porter 2002, 76).
Figure 1 provides visual representation of this point, depicting MUI members waiting to be
received by Suharto.
![Page 19: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Figure 1: A line of MUI members wait to be received by their superior, Suharto. With Suharto is Datuk Palimo Kayo, MUI Provincial Chair for West Sumatra (Pelita 1985).
MUI was also the Indonesian government’s formal face abroad in bodies like the
Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In April 1974 the OIC urged Muslim governments to
declare Ahmadiyah, a small religious sect often perceived as heterodox by Sunni Muslims, to be
a non-Muslim minority (Friedmann 1989, 44). The statement led to anti-Ahmadi resolutions in
Jordan, Mauritania, and Mecca and exacerbated ongoing conflict in Pakistan. MUI issued its own
fatwa against Ahmadiyah in 1984, decrying the group as a heretical sect.
The 1984 fatwa against Ahmadiyah had little effect. The Suharto government was more
concerned with development than heterodoxy, and MUI fatwas that opposed state policy were
![Page 20: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
largely ignored, or in some cases opposed by Suharto, such as the fatwa on Muslims not
attending Christmas celebrations, which led to the MUI chair’s resignation (Nasir 2014, 494).
The 1984 fatwa on Ahmadiyah was ignored; the few newspaper articles mentioning the fatwa
focused on the dispute between the Ministry of Religion, which like MUI sought to ban
Ahmadiyah, and the Ministry of Justice, which had given Ahmadiyah legal recognition (Pelita
1984).
MUI’s authority in this period was a product of its charismatic religious scholars (ulama or
kiyai in the common Indonesian form)—in this period, the famous Muhammadiyah leader
Hamka (1977-1981), then Syukri Ghozali (1981-1984), then another Muhamadiyah leader,
Hasan Basri (1984-1990)—as well as of MUI’s corporatist association with the state. It was seen
as the umbrella for Indonesian Islam. Yet, its authority was also contested, with Abdurrahman
Wahid launching the earliest critiques in 1981 (Sirry 2013, 106). Without more muscular sources
of authority, MUI’s influence was limited.
By focusing on the organizational reasons for MUI’s authority, this paper seeks to counter
more ideological accounts of its influence. That said, it is worth closing this section with a brief
account of MUI’s mission in 1975, since it changed so drastically in subsequent periods. MUI
was tasked with serving as the “translator of the concepts and activities of national or local
development for the people;” being a council that “gives advice and opinions to the government
concerning religious life;” and being the “mediator between the government and the ‘ulamā”
(Ichwan 2005, 48). MUI’s authority stemmed from the charisma of its ulama and its closeness to
the state, which led to influence around the margins of the state and fatwas that amplified state
policy, weakly resisted state corporatism, or were simply ignored.
![Page 21: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Period II (1990-2005): Institutional Innovation
Period II was a time of institutional innovation and expansion under the leadership of two
prominent NU scholars, Ali Yafie (1990-1999) and Sahal Mahfudh (1999-2014). The Institute
for Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Assessment was created in January 1989, then issued its first halal
certificate in 1994 (Ichwan 2013, 71). Halal certification is a labeling system that assures
consumers that a product complies with rules about ritual cleanliness. Islamic banking began in
May 1992 with the Bank Muamalat Indonesia (BMI), an MUI project with support from
government officials including Suharto (Ichwan 2006, 205). Both programs began small, and
MUI continued to be a resource-poor organization for most of the 1990s. Hosen reports that MUI
would frequently give board members only a day’s notice about meetings and an honorarium of
50,000 rupiah ($22 USD), which would not even cover their transport to Istiqlal mosque. Many
members did not have access to a library to prepare for meetings (Hosen 2004, 177). Not
surprisingly, many scholars have commented on the relatively shallow quality of MUI’s
arguments in this decade; Ahmad Sukardja argues that MUI in the early 1990s was a low-
capacity organization whose fatwas were prepared hastily (Hosen 2004, 177).
Growing financial independence, however, led to program development. At its 1995
congress, MUI laid out an ambitious program that included the promotion of Islamic
brotherhood, education, Islamic economics, Islamic identity and propagation (da’wa),
community development, and the training of ulama (Ichwan 2005, 49). MUI claimed that it was
sending 2,000 preachers (da’i) to areas where the state’s transmigration program was active
(Antara 1993). Ichwan reports that each da’i received 100,000 rupiah ($44) per month for three
years, as well as one bike (Ichwan 2006, 202).
The early 1990s was also a period of cooperation between MUI and ICMI. Created in
![Page 22: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
December 1990, ICMI was a Suharto-sponsored association designed to mobilize Muslim
supporters against Suharto’s opponents (Liddle 1996). It was initially organized by five students
from the Universitas Brawijaya in Malang, East Java, but its importance lies more in its backing
by Suharto’s deputy, B. J. Habibie, and Minister for Population and the Environment Emil
Salim. Neither was then known as a Muslim leader, but instead as high-ranking officials close to
Suharto. Habibie was an engineer and technocrat, Salim a prominent economist. The group they
put together included many government officials that were jointly associated with MUI, namely
Azwar Anas, then coordinating minister for people's welfare, Lt. Gen. (ret) Achmad Tirtosudiro,
head of the critical National Logistics Body which controlled food distribution, and West
Sumatran Governor Hasan Basri. Other Suharto officials with prominent Islamic credentials
included Ministry of Manpower official Din Syamsuddin, and the agricultural economist Amin
Aziz. ICMI also included genuine kiyai like K.H. Ali Yafie, and other prominent religious
scholars like the legal scholar Jimly Asshidique, Muhammadiyah leader and Gadjah Mada
University political scientist Amien Rais, the Shia intellectual Jalaluddin Rahmat, the journalist
and historian Syafi'i Anwar, and very senior Islamist figures from the 1950s like Anwar Haryono
and Lukman Harun.2 There were formal ties between MUI and ICMI, such as their joint
statement against a state-run lottery program (MUI 1997, 193). The lottery, commonly known as
Porkas (Forecast), was discontinued less than two weeks later. But the more important
relationships were informal. ICMI’s architects infused MUI with more power than previously,
with Jimly Asshiddique and Amin Aziz at the helm of MUI’s emergent halal food certification
program and Azwar Anas, Emil Salim, and Ali Yafie at the center of the Islamic banking
program (Pelita 1993). These ties suggest that the enduring legacy of Suharto’s emboldening of
political Islam can be found not in ICMI, whose influence has waned, but in the expanding
![Page 23: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
power of MUI.
During this period and into period III, MUI gained regulatory power as a result of
administrative regulations and parliamentary law. DSN MUI oversees the Sharia Supervisory
Boards (Dewan Pengawas Syariah, DPS) that are required in all Islamic financial institutions,
including banks and Islamic insurance companies (Lindsey 2012, 261). The DSN is currently
chaired by Ma’ruf Amin and receives funding from the government through the Ministry of
Finance and the central bank, as well as payments from DPS in Islamic financial institutions.
Scholars estimate that this is a significant source of funding for MUI, given that Islamic banking
is estimated to account for 3% of the country’s $42 billion in financial assets (Nikkei 2016).
Each DPS is required to consult the DSN MUI for guidance on issues of doctrine, which it gives
in the form of fatwas. It issued 50 fatwas between 1993 and 2003 related to banking and
insurance, and maintains active authority in finance (Lindsey 2012, 265).
MUI also gets funding and authority from its halal food certification program. The law on
Animal Health and Husbandry requires that a certifying body endorse all halal meat (Lindsey
2012, 266). Until the end of 2017, MUI was the only certifying body (Jakarta Post 2017).
Ministry of Agriculture regulations oblige all businesses in foreign countries producing meat for
export to Indonesia to have a staff to ensure their products are halal. This staff is to be
“controlled and supervised by a Halal Certification Institute recognized by and cooperating with
[LP-POM MUI] and the Fatwa Commission of the MUI” (Lindsey 2012, 266-267, citing article
15(1)(e)). Numerous laws and regulations from the 1990s and 2000s grant MUI sole authority as
the inspection agency for halal food (Lindsey 2012, 267).
Given its regulatory authority, the legal scholar Tim Lindsey describes MUI in this period as
a “QUANGO,” a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization (Lindsey 2012, 255). In the
![Page 24: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
British and American traditions, QUANGOS are financed largely by the government, are
responsible to their own board of directors, and are located on government property. Examples
include research units sponsored by the U.S. Defense Department and private organizations
established by government funding, such as the Rand Corporation. The implications of this
change for the authority of MUI’s fatwas are striking: “…MUI fatwas in Indonesia are no longer
always just religious recommendations issued from civil society that lack binding force, as in the
past. In the case of the halal certification industry, as for Islamic banking, some MUI fatwas now
have legal status as enforceable regulatory instruments of state” (Lindsey 2012, 268).
The result of this increased power is that in period II MUI began contesting state authority.
In December 2000, MUI issued a fatwa stating that the Japanese company Ajinomoto’s products
were haram because the company used bacto soytone, which contains a pig enzyme, in the
production of its widely used monosodium glutamate (MSG) products (Ichwan 2005, 69-70). As
a result, MUI revoked Ajinomoto’s halal certification.
Indonesian President Wahid disagreed with MUI’s decision and issued a fatwa in support of
Ajinomoto. Yet, by this point in his presidency Wahid was plagued by scandal, and MUI proved
to be more powerful than him. Laode Djeni Hasmar of Golkar said that only MUI had the
authority to issue such a fatwa. PPP and other Islamist parties followed suit. The chief of police,
General Bimantoro, said his officers would follow MUI rather than Wahid (Ichwan 2005, 70-71).
MUI was building on its growing authority as well as its other battles with Wahid; in 1999
Wahid had suggested that MUI should be financially independent and have an office outside of
Istiqlal, and MUI had opposed Wahid’s policies on opening trade with Israel and overturning the
1966 ban on Communism (Ichwan 2005, 62, 70). This fatwa is also a reminder of the limits of
explanations grounded in charismatic authority. Wahid was a far more charismatic, famous, and
![Page 25: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
popular ulama compared to Ma’ruf Amin or Mahfudh, yet he proved less powerful than MUI due
to its regulatory authority and political alliances.
MUI has also shaped the country’s media environment. In 1983, during the production of
the film Sunun Kalijaga, MUI leaders participated in a discussion about how religious principles
could be promoted though film, but MUI had no effect on programming (Hereen 2012, 116).
Period II saw greater influence. In 1994, Ali Yafie and Hasan Basri called for the film True Lies
to be banned on the grounds that it was offensive to Muslims (Republika 1994). The film was
removed from theaters less than two weeks later. In 1996, Basri protested the films Jin dan Jun
and Si Manis Jembatan Ancol on the grounds that they presented false religious teachings. His
critique did not lead to censorship of these specific films, but two years later the Film Censorship
Board (LSF) was instructed by the Minister of Information to ban films and television series with
themes that misrepresent religious teachings (Hereen 2012, 146). And in 2004, MUI signed on to
the popular television preacher AA Gym’s campaign to get the film Buruan cium gue! (Hurry Up
and Kiss Me!) banned on the grounds that it promoted premarital sex among teenagers. The film
was withdrawn from cinemas (Hereen 2012, 163).
MUI has gained even more power over media through its influence on LSF and the
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) and through its partnership with the mass movement
FPI. As a result, MUI no longer needs to rely on fatwas or government ministers to have
programs censored. The most recent manifestation of influence is an award that KPI presented in
2018 to Ma’ruf Amin for being a major figure in broadcasting (RMOL 2018). In another
innovation, MUI itself has handed out media awards since 2001 in order to incentivize television
producers to run religious programs during Ramadan (Hereen 2012, 128, 175). The criterion for
the awards seems to be the quantity of programming, not the quality (Barkin 2004, 15).
![Page 26: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
MUI’s ally, ICMI, was innovative during this period in its strategies to defeat its opponents,
using the claim that they were guilty of “defamation of religion” (penodaan agama) in order to
have them harassed, prosecuted, and jailed. In March 1995, the ICMI leader and Suharto loyalist
Din Syamsuddin launched such a campaign against a critic of Suharto, Permadi Satrio Wiwoho.
Syamsuddin used a recording of a speech Permadi had given in April 1994 to allege that Permadi
had insulted Suharto, Golkar, and the Prophet Muhammad. This was a repeat of an earlier
campaign by Syamsuddin and Golkar to mobilize the Muslim community against Arswendo
Atmowiloto, editor of the mass tabloid Monitor (Hefner 2000, 175-178). On the same day that
Syamsuddin’s statement was published, MUI chair Basri called a press conference to denounce
Permadi’s statements and demand legal action against him. In the end, Permadi was convicted of
slander and sentenced to eight months in jail. Shortly thereafter, in 1998, Syamsuddin becomes
Secretary of the MUI Steering Committee (Panitia Pengarah), then becomes General Secretary
in 2000 (MUI 1999, 2005). Syamsuddin and MUI again deployed the charge of “defamation”
against Ahmadi Muslims in the early 2000s, and in 2016 against the Christian governor of
Jakarta in order to cripple his reelection campaign.
After the fall of Suharto, MUI’s purview expanded horizontally (through tackling more
issues and contesting state power) and vertically (by reaching down to society). As it moved out
from under the corporatist control of the Ministry of Religion, MUI began acting more like a
peer institution, contesting the state’s policy prerogatives. This shift is readily apparent in MUI’s
changing approach to the Compilation of Islamic Law (Kompilasi Hukum Islam, KHI). In 1985,
MUI was involved in the project of codifying Islamic law to be used by the Islamic court system,
but was only one of 17 committee members that drafted the KHI. This was a top-down process,
with MUI “simply there to justify KHI” (Ichwan 2006, 128). This is in sharp contrast to MUI’s
![Page 27: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
influence by 2004, when a team within the Ministry of Religious Affairs developed a series of
reforms to the KHI. After the proposals were made public, MUI and other organizations objected
and successfully blocked even a discussion of reforms to the KHI, let alone their enactment
(Ichwan 2006, 266).
In Islamic legal theory, fatwas are a response to a specific question asked of a specific mufti
about an actual situation; they are very rarely hypothetical (Masud, Messick, and Powers 1996).
Yet after 2000, MUI began setting the “agenda” for policy in Indonesia, giving fatwas whether
requested or not (Nasir 2014, 495; Ichwan 2005, 50). In 2000, MUI’s mission reflected its new
role, defined as being the fatwā giver (mufti) “whether requested or not”; guide and servant of
the Muslim community (rā’i wa khādim al-ummah); pioneer in the reform and the renewal
movement (al- iṣlāḥ wa’l tajdīd); and upholder of the Quaranic dictate to be a “moral force …
for social rehabilitation” (Ichwan 2005, 50).
Period III (2005-present): Mass Mobilization
2005 marked the debut of the assertive, agenda-setting MUI, powered by regulatory,
charismatic and formal state authority while free from the financial constraints of the state. In
this period, MUI has repeatedly crafted fatwas that have been seen as binding. The mission of
MUI as articulated in 2005 included the roles listed at the end of the previous section, as well as
“upholder of the known good and forbidding the reprehensible” (al-amr bi al-ma‘rūf wa al-nahy
‘an al-munkar). Notice that there is nothing in the mission about being the advisor of the state.
MUI in this period often leads the state.
MUI reissued its fatwa against Ahmadiyah in July 2005. The difference in the influence of
MUI’s fatwas in 2005 and 1984 is instructive in two respects. First, there is a common
![Page 28: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
perception that MUI has grown more conservative since democratization, and indeed it has
grown more assertive about its support for shari’a-based legislation (Hasyim 2015; Ichwan
2013). Yet on the Ahmadiyah issue—as with the issues of religious deviance, inter-religious
marriage, Muslims’ attendance at Christmas celebrations, the visual depiction of the Prophet
Muhammad, penalties for drug users, alcohol consumption, opposition to transgender persons,
and support for family planning—MUI’s views are best characterized as static.
Second, what have changed are MUI’s mechanisms for influence. The 2005 fatwa against
Ahmadiyah was part of a broader campaign launched at a seminar titled “Ahmadiyah: Its
Deviation and Danger” at Istiqlal Mosque (then MUI’s headquarters) on August 11, 2002. Amin
Djamaluddin, the head of the Islamic Research and Study Institute (Lembaga Penelitian dan
Pengkajian Islam, LPPI) and the most persistent proponent of the anti-Ahmadiyah movement,
was one of the main presenters (Burhani 2013, 226). Violence followed two months later, with
mass mobilization in East Lombok, Kuningan, and Tasikmalaya, then spreading in 2005 to
Bogor under the leadership of FPI and Djamaluddin. On July 15, 2005, upwards of 10,000
people attacked the Bogor headquarters of the Ahmadiyah Indonesia Congregation (Jamaah
Ahmadiyah Indonesia). Armed with sticks and batons, the attackers broke into the compound and
set fire to buildings. Nearly 400 police officers stood outside the compound as this happened,
then shuttled Ahmadis to the Bogor prosecutor’s office for “safekeeping” (Jakarta Post 2005).
Djamaluddin’s campaign against Ahmadiyah dates back decades, but only in the 2000s did his
research have the authority of the state. In 2005 he was appointed by MUI to be its representative
for discussions about heretical sects with a team from the Coordinating Body for the Surveillance
of Spiritual Movements in Society (Badan Koordinasi Pengawasan Aliran Kepercayaan
Masyarakat, Bakor Pakem) in the Attorney General’s Office. When Bakor Pakem recommended
![Page 29: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
to the government that it outlaw and disband Ahmadiyah, the contents of its recommendation
strongly resembled the letters that Djamaluddin had sent to the Attorney General’s Office in
1994 and 1996 (Burhani 2013, 228-229).
When MUI re-issued its fatwa against Ahmadiyah, it did so not from a position of
subservience, but with financial autonomy from the state, strong ties to violent movements, and
close ties to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). Rather than focus its energies on
getting the Ministry of Justice to repeal recognition of Ahmadis, as in 1984, MUI lobbied SBY
directly and partnered with Islamic vigilantes to lobby from below using the threat and
enactment of violence. The alliance between FPI and MUI was thus born of shared goals and
complementary avenues of influence. Burhani notes, “When the government did not give its
support, in a number of cases, it was through the muscle of the mob that Islamic orthodoxy could
be defended and enforced” (2013, 234). FPI helped MUI establish itself as an independent actor
without losing its status as a quasi-state institution: “FPI uses MUI’s fatwa to legitimize violent
vigilantism such as its attacks on the Ahmadiyah sect, while MUI uses this violence to justify the
need for its fatwa to be followed in order to ensure ‘religious harmony’” (Wilson 2008, 205).
Unlike in periods I and II, MUI now runs a lucrative patronage network that benefits
vigilante groups. MUI received funding from the Ministry of Religion in the amount of 2 billion
rupiah ($144,000) in 2009 and 3 billion rupiah ($216,000) in 2010 and in 2011 (Lindsey 2012,
262). Based on interviews with leaders and MUI reports, Ichwan estimates that MUI received
649 billion rupiah ($46,682,636) from its halal certification activity between 2012 and 2017, or
around 108 billion rupiah ($7,780,000) annually (Moch Nur Ichwan, May 9, 2018, e-mail
message to author). When Parliament established a legislative committee to review a draft law
on pornography and pornographic actions in response to pressure from MUI (Bush 2007, 178),
![Page 30: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
MUI then received “socialization funds” from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which it
distributed to its allies in the street: FPI, the Betawi Brotherhood Forum (Forum Betawi
Rempug), the Indonesian Mujahidin Council (Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia) and the Indonesian
Liberation Party (Hizb ut Tharir) (Wilson 2008, 204-205). And similar to the national level, MUI
has clear connections at the provincial level with radical groups that help it gain leverage with
the police and government ministries by using violence to create crisis (Ichwan 2012, 170).
The result of this dynamic is that MUI fatwas regarding blasphemy are very often binding,
backed by the coercive capacity of the state. Ichwan notes, “Government, police, judges and
media have treated the MUI as if it is part of [a] state institution” (Ichwan 2012, 170). On the
issue of Ahmadiyah, MUI defined the problem (exercising its agenda setting authority), issued a
formal definition of deviancy (expert authority), lobbied the state for support in meetings with
the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Religion (employing lobbying and regulatory
authority), and then used mass mobilization (people power) and explicit or implicit violence
(coercive authority) to convince the police to enforce its fatwa. Further, MUI took actions to
ensure that the fatwa would be enforced consistently. ICG reports, “…Ma’ruf Amin told the
television audience, and later reiterated in an interview, that MUI was putting together a
monitoring team to determine whether Ahmadiyah was obeying the decree. The team would be
organised by MUI branches at province, district and subdistrict levels, and mass Islamic
organisations would be invited to participate” (ICG 2008, 8). In monitoring Ahmadis for
compliance with the fatwa, MUI was simply extending its regulatory power from the realms of
food and finance to faith.
MUI has deployed mass mobilization and coercive authority on multiple occasions since
2005. In a 2010 trial on the constitutionality of Indonesia’s blasphemy law, mentions of crimes
![Page 31: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
against Ahmadi Muslims led to the vigilantes on the second floor of the courtroom screaming at
the witnesses until the lawyer for MUI, Muhammad Luthfi Hakim, signaled for his allies to quiet
down (Personal observation, Jakarta, March 10 and 12, 2010). Likewise, former Jakarta governor
Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) landed in prison in 2016 through a combination of a MUI fatwa,
political alliance, and mass mobilization. In this respect, the name of the coalition that organized
the mass protests, Gerakan Nasional Pengawal Fatwa MUI (National Movement to Safeguard
the Fatwa of the MUI) is misleading: more appropriate would be Gerakan MUI Melakukan
Fatwa MUI (MUI Movement to Enforce the Fatwa of the MUI).
V. Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that classical theories of Islamic law, Weber’s typology, and
ethical theories of fatwas cannot explain MUI’s growing power or its modes of authority. MUI
has grown powerful by aggregating modern forms of authority: agenda-setting, lobbying, expert
authority, regulatory authority, mass mobilization, and coercive authority may all underpin the
power of a MUI fatwa.
MUI’s repertoire of influence raises two immediate questions. First, would MUI be as
powerful if it did not issue fatwas, but simply exerted authority through other means? After all,
in period III much of MUI’s influence has been exercised through lobbying, patronage, violence,
and other mechanisms. Yet, MUI appears to believe that its fatwas are not dispensable. Ma’ruf
Amin’s October 11, 2016, statement about Ahok was titled a “Religious Opinion” (Pendapat dan
Sikap Keagamaan) and not a fatwa (MUI 2016). But everyone involved elided this distinction,
especially the leaders of the GNPF-MUI.
![Page 32: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Second, what are the limits of MUI’s influence? There remain issues on which MUI’s
authority is muted. Its 2007 fatwa against “infotainment” had little effect (Hartono 2015, 305-
306). Even shows about Islam tend to be folksy rather than pedagogical, leading MUI to accuse
producers of making “dakwahtainment” (Sofjan and Hidayati 2013). MUI has influence over
such shows through the KPI, but does not have a veto. MUI leader Cholil Ridwan recently
criticized filmmaker Hanung Bramanyato for his film Tanda Tanya (Question Mark), but the
film was released nonetheless and went on to be nominated for nine awards during the 2011
Indonesian Film Festival (Saat 2016, 562). Similarly, MUI’s attempt to have the National
Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia) disbanded was
unsuccessful (Jakarta Post 2000). And despite its being widely mocked, each year MUI re-issues
its fatwa against Muslims saying “Merry Christmas” or participating in Christmas celebrations
(Hussain 2012). These examples of truncated impact suggest that MUI has been most influential
when it moves into issue-areas that are not already occupied by other powerful actors and when
it is not competing against market forces.
Nonetheless, from the standpoint of empirical democratic theory MUI is too powerful and
unaccountable an institution. This concern became more pressing after President Joko Widodo’s
victory in April 2019 presidential election. With Ma’ruf Amin in the vice-presidential palace,
MUI’s transformation into the Indonesian version of JAKIM may accelerate. The result would be
national regulations that were once unthinkable, including requirements for Muslims to attend
Friday prayers and fast during Ramadan and for all businesses to obtain halal certification.
Similar to Malaysia, Indonesia could see mandatory prohibitions on drinking alcohol, gambling,
blasphemy, “sexual deviance,” interfaith marriage, and conversion out of Islam (Moustafa 2018,
31).
![Page 33: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Indonesia is a remarkably resilient democracy, but for democracy to endure, the place and
power of MUI must be made consistent with democratic norms and practices (Aspinall 2015).
Thus, this paper concludes with observations on the ways in which MUI’s power is in conflict
with democracy, as well as potential remedies.
First, MUI has used its “non-state” status to avoid the transparency demanded of public
institutions, while simultaneously deploying multiple forms of authority to have its fatwas
enacted as if they were state law; this contradiction merits attention. One way to resolve this
conflict is to have all MUI funding made contingent on transparency in its contracting and
decision-making. Too little is known about MUI’s relationship to parliament and to the Ministry
of Religious Affairs; the internal working of MUI committees; the extent of the funding MUI
receives and the conditions under which it obtains funding; the mechanisms by which MUI
decisions are made; the methods by which it influences the KPI and the LSF; and the
mechanisms by which MUI leaders come into power. These are also pressing areas for scholarly
research.
Second, MUI’s monopoly control over halal food regulation and Islamic banking
certification incentivizes corruption and gives an unelected, unrepresentative actor power over
the public welfare (Kunkler and Stepan 2013). MUI is fulfilling tasks that are outsourced by the
state, yet the contracts are not granted based on meritocratic criteria and competition between
MUI and other organizations. Obvious options for reform include making food certification and
Islamic banking certification private and competitive, or a state responsibility akin to health
inspection. Thankfully, at the time of writing it appears that the state is pursuing the latter
approach. The 2014 Halal Products Law created a new body, the Halal Assurance Agency
(Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Produk Halal) to administer halal certification.
![Page 34: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Third and finally, MUI’s usurpation of the power of the legislature and the executive
contravenes the rule of law (Kunkler and Stepan 2013). Although MUI aspires to have its fatwas
seen as binding law by the state and society, similar to those of religious officials in Brunei and
Malaysia, that power has not been granted to MUI by Indonesia’s democratic institutions. The
police, courts, and elected officials need not treat MUI’s opinions as more than just that.
![Page 35: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
References Abbott, Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421-456. Agrama, Hussein Ali. 2010. “Ethics, Tradition, Authority: Toward an Anthropology of the Fatwa.” American Ethnologist 37:1, 2-18. Ali, Muhammad. 2002. “Fatwas on Interfaith-Marriage in Indonesia.” Studia Islamika. 9:3, 1-33. Arifianto, Alexander R. 2018. “Quo Vadis Civil Islam? Explaining Rising Islamism in Post-Reformasi Indonesia.” Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia 24. Accessed February 25, 2019 https://kyotoreview.org/issue-24/rising-islamism-in-post-reformasi-indonesia/ Aspinall, Edward. 2005. Opposing Suharto: Compromise, Resistance, and Regime Change in Indonesia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Aspinall, Edward. 2015. “The Surprising Democratic Behemoth: Indonesia in Comparative Asian Perspective.” The Journal of Asian Studies 74:04, 889 – 902. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burhani, Ahmad Najib. 2013. “When Muslims are not Muslims:The Ahmadiyya Community and the Discourse on Heresy in Indonesia.” PhD Thesis, University of California Santa Barbara. Bush, Robin. 2008. “Regional Sharia Regulations: Anomaly or Symptom?” In Expressing Islam: Religious Life and Politics in Indonesia, Greg Fealy and Sally White, ed. Singapore: ISEAS Press. 174-191. Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. London and Berkeley: University of California Press. Eickelman, Dale F. 1998. “Mass Education and the Religious Imagination in Contemporary Arab Societies.” American Ethnologist 19:4, 643-655. Friedmann, Yohanan. 1989. Prophecy continuous: aspects of Aḥmadī religious thought and its medieval background. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hallaq, Wael B. 2009. Sharī'a: Theory, Practice, Transformations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hartono, Savitri Hanny. 2015. “Muslim Mothers and Indonesian Gossip Shows in Everyday Life.” Indonesia and the Malay World. 43: 126, 298–316.
![Page 36: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Hasyim, Syafiq. 2011. “The Council of Indonesian Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia, MUI) and Religious Freedom,” Irasec’s Discussion Papers, No. 12. www.irasec.com Hasyim, Syariq. 2015. “Majelis Ulama Indonesia and pluralism in Indonesia.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 41:4-5, 487-495. Hefner, Robert. 2000. Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 1998. “Multiple Modernities: Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism in a Globalizing Age.” Annual Review of Anthropoly 27:83–104. Hereen, Kantinka van. 2012. Contemporary Indonesian Film: Spirits of Reform and Ghosts from the Past. Leiden: KITLV Press. Hoesterey, James Bourk. 2015. Rebranding Islam: Piety, Prosperity, and a Self-help Guru (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Hosen, Nadirsyah. 2004. “Behind the Scenes: Fatwas of Majelis Ulama Indonesia (1975-1998)Journal of Islamic Studies 15: 2, 147-179. Hussain, Zakir. 2012. “Anti-Christmas clerics rebuffed in Indonesia; Muslims ignore order calling on them not to offer festive greetings.” The Straits Times, December 24. Hussin, Iza R. 2016. The Politics of Islamic Law: Local Elites, Colonial Authoruty, and the Making of the Muslim State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ichwan, Moch Nur. 2005. “Ulamā, State And Politics: Majelis Ulama Indonesia After Suharto.” Islamic Law and Society 12:1, 45-72. ———. 2006. Official Reform of Islam: State Islam and the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Contemporary Indonesia, 1966-2004. PhD thesis, University of Tilburg. ———. 2012. “The Local Politics of Orthodoxy: The Majelis Ulama Indonesia in the Post-New Order Banten.” Journal of Indonesian Islam 6:1, 167-194. International Crisis Group (ICG). 2001. “Indonesia: Violence and Radical Muslims.” Crisis Group Asia Briefing, 10 October. ———. 2008. “Indonesia: Implications of the Ahmadiyah Decree.” Crisis Group Asia Briefing N° 78, 7 July. Kingsley, Jeremy. 2014. “Redrawing Lines of Religious Authority in Lombok, Indonesia.” Asian Journal of Social Science 42: 657–677.
![Page 37: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Khalaji, Mehdi. 2011. “Shiite Jurisprudence, Political Expediency, and Nuclear Weapons.” In Nuclear Fatwas: Religion and Politics in Iran’s Proliferation Strategy. The Middle East Institute, Policy Focus #115. Accessed July 6, 2018 https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus115.pdf Künkler, Mirjam and Alfred Stepan. 2013. “Indonesian Democratization in Theoretical Perspective.” In Democracy and Islam in Indonesia, Mirjam Künkler and Alfred Stepan, ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Lev, Daniel S. 1972. Islamic Courts in Indonesia: A Study in the Political Bases of Legal Institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press. Liddle, R. William. 1996. “The Islamic Turn in Indonesia: A Political Explanation.” The Journal of Asian Studies 55:3, 613-634. Lindsey, Tim. 2012. “Monopolising Islam? The Indonesian Ulama Council and State Regulations of the ‘Islamic Economy’” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 48:2, 253-274. Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI). 1992. Majelis Ulama IndonesiaL Jeputusan Rapat Kerja Nasional Majelis Ulama Indonesia Th. 1992. Jakarta: Sekretariat Majelis Ulama Indonesia. ———. 1997a. Himpunan Fatwa Majelis Ulama Indonesia. Jakarta: Majelis Ulama Indonesia. ———. 1997b. Majelis Ulama Indonesia: Resume Garis-Garis Besar Program Kerja dan Ketentuian Tugas Komisi Majelis Ulama Indonesia Periode 1995-2000. Jakarta: Majelis Ulama Indonesia. ———. 1999. Kumpulan Hasil-Hasil Kongres Umat Islam Indonesia: Umat Islam Menyongsong Era Indonesia Baru. Jakarta: Majelis Ulama Indonesia. ———. 2005. Himpunan Keputusan Musyawarah Nasional VIII Majelis Ulama Indonesia 2005. Jakarta: Sekretariat Majelis Ulama Indonesia. ———. 2016. “Pendapat dan Sikap Keagamaan Majelis Ulama Indonesia,” October 11, 2016. Masud, Muhammad Khalid, Brinkley Messick, and David S Powers. 1996. “Muftis, Fatwas, and Islamic Legal Interpretation” in Masud, Muhammad Khalid, Brinkley Messick, and David S Powers Islamic Legal interpretation: Muftis and their Fatwas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 3-32. Menchik, Jeremy. 2014. “Productive Intolerance: Godly Nationalism in Indonesia,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 56(3): 591-621.
![Page 38: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Moustafa, Tamir. 2000. “Conflict and Cooperation Between the State and Religious Institutions in Contemporary Egypt.” International Journal of Middle East Studies. 32, 3–22. ———. 2013. “Judging in God’s Name: State Power, Secularism, and the Politics of Islamic Law in Malaysia.” Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 3:1, pp. 1–16 ———. 2018. Constituting Religion: Islam, Liberal Rights, and the Malaysian State. New York: Cambridge University Press. Müller, Dominik M. 2015. “Sharia Law and the Politics of “Faith Control” in Brunei Darussalam: Dynamics of Socio-Legal Change in a Southeast Asian Sultanate.” Internationales Asienforum, 46: 3–4, pp. 313–345. ———. 2017. “The Bureaucratization of Islam and its Socio-Legal Dimensions in Southeast Asia: conceptual contours of a research project.” Working Paper No. 187. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Papers. Müller, Dominik M., and Kerstin Steiner (2018). “The Bureaucratisation of Islam in Southeast Asia: Transdisciplinary Perspectives.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 37, 1, 3–26. Mudzhar, Mohamad Atho. 1993. Fatwa-Fatwa Majelis Ulama Indonesia [Fatwas of the MUI]. Jakarta: INIS. ———. 1996. “The Council of the Indonesian Ulama on Muslims' Attendance at Christmas Celebrations.” In Islamic legal interpretation : muftis and their fatwas, edited by M. K. Masud, B. M. Messick and D. S. Powers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Nasir, Mohamad Abdun. 2014. “The ʿUlamāʾ, Fatāwā and Challenges to Democracy in Contemporary Indonesia,” Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 25:4, 489-505. Olle, John. 2009. “The Majelis Ulama Indonesia Versus ‘Heresy’: The Resurgence of Authoritarian Islam.” In State of Authority: The State in Society in Indonesia, Gerry van Klinken and Joshua Barker, ed. 95-116. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Peletz, Michael. 2013. “Malaysia’s Syariah Judiciary as Global Assemblage: Islamization, Corporatization, and Other Transformations in Context.” Comparative Studies in Society and History. 55:3, 603-633. Peletz, Michael. 2014. “A tale of two courts: Judicial transformation and the rise of a corporate Islamic governmentality in Malaysia.” American Ethnologist. 42:1, 144–160. Pepinsky, Thomas B., R. William Liddle, and Saiful Mujani. 2018. Piety and Public Opinion: Understanding Indonesian Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Porter, Donald J. 2002. Managing Politics and Islam in Indonesia. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
![Page 39: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Saat, Norshahril. 2016. “Theologians ‘Moralizing’ Indonesia? The Case of the Post-New Order Ulama Council of Indonesia (MUI)” Asian Journal of Social Science 44, 546-570 Schwarz, Adam. 2000. A National in Waiting: Indonesia’s Search for Stability. Westview Press. Sirry, Mun’im. 2013. “Fatwas and their controversy: The Case of the Council of Indonesian Ulama (MUI)” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 44:1, 100-117. Sofjan, Dicky, and Mega Hidayati. 2013. “Religion and Television in Indonesia: Ethics Surrounding Dakwahtainment.” Globethics.net Focus, No. 15. Tayeb, Azmil. 2017. “State Islamic Orthodoxies and Islamic Education in Malaysia and Indonesia.” Kajian Malaysia 35:2, 1-20. Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. A.M. Henderson and Talcot Parsons. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Wilson, Ian Douglas. 2013. “’As Long as it’s Halal’: Islamic Preman in Jakarta” in Fealy, Greg and Sally White, ed. Expressing Islam: Religious Life and Politics in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asia Publishing, 192-210 World Values Survey (accessed April 25, 2018 at http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp) Newspaper Articles Antara. “MUI Rencanakan Korim 2,000 Da’i ke Daerah Transmigrasi,” July 20, 1993. Jakarta Post. “MUI Calls for Rights Body to be Dissolved,” January 12, 2000. Jakarta Post. “Government ends MUI’s authority to issue halal certificates,” October 13, 2017. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/10/13/government-ends-muis-authority-to-issue-halal-certificates.html (accessed 1/9/2018). Maulia, Erwida. “Indonesia Islamic finance miniscule, but growing rapidly: study.” Nikkei Asian Review, March 15, 2016 (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Indonesia-Islamic-finance-miniscule-but-growing-rapidly-study accessed February 2, 2018).
Pelita. “MUI Serukan Pengikut Ahmadiyah Qadiyan Kembali ke Islam yang Benar,” May 5, 1984. Pelita, “President Soeharto Buka Munas ke-III MUI: Pancasila adalah Pancasila dan Agama adalah Agama,” July 22, 1985. Pelita. “Produk Cantumkan Label Hala Agar Bersedia Diperiksa MUI,” March 21, 1991. Pelita. “MUI tak Perlu Menunggu UU Pengawasan Makanan,” March 22, 1991.
![Page 40: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Pelita. “MUI Bentuk Badan Penggerak Ekonomi Umat,” April 13, 1993. Pelita. “Kita Wajib Beri Tahu, Apa yang Kita Tahu.” Kompas, May 3, 1994. Republika. “Ali Yafie Persoalkan Pernyataan MUI,” September 20, 1994. RMOL.co. “Kiai Ma'ruf Amin Tokoh Penyiaran 2018,” http://politik.rmol.co/read/2018/04/01/333436/Kiai-Maruf-Amin-Tokoh-Penyiaran-2018- (accessed April 30, 2018). Sufa, Theresia. “Thousands besiege Ahmadiyah complex,” Jakarta Post, July 16, 2005.
![Page 41: Indonesia, · president Joko Widodo, the head of MUI’s Fatwa Commission Ma’ruf Amin, and members of more moderate Muslim organizations. The event was a triumph for the power of](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060809/608ded9e0fd3f145af4b5cee/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
1 The office of the Freedom Institute, now closed, was once located a few doors away from the MUI building. These real estate changes are a potent metaphor, since liberal Islam has fared poorly in the face of MUI’s rise. 2 Key sources of names of ICMI leaders include Hefner 2000, Aspinall 2005, and Schwarz 2000. Key sources of names of MUI leaders include MUI 1992, 1997a, 1997b, and 2005. I am grateful to Bob Hefner for suggesting this line of analysis.